Health Bill - Standing Committee E

[Ann Winterton in the Chair]

Health Bill

Clause 4 - Additional smoke-free places

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Murrison: I will not detain the Committee, other than to recap and make some final remarks on the clause.
I must say that I have been a bit disappointed by the Minister’s response so far, because this is an important clause that gives the Secretary of State extensive powers. We have explained throughout that we are a little worried about the powers given by regulation to the current Secretary of State and her successors.
The insertion of “significant amounts of” before the word “smoke” in subsection (3) would have been helpful because it would have made it clear that we were not talking about trivial exposure. I think we have probably done to death, so to speak, the concept of exposure to trivial amounts of smoke, and I have made my position clear. If we are talking about public health—as I certainly am—we need to discard what one might call nuisance or trivial exposure to tobacco smoke. The purpose of my amendment was to underscore public health and discard nuisance and amenity, which although important have no place in a Bill such as this—as I suspect most people in the country, being of a libertarian frame of mind, would agree. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to entertain my reasonable suggestion.
The clause gives the Secretary of State considerable powers. I trust that the right hon. Lady and her successors will use those powers wisely, but we will certainly be keeping a close eye on the use of the authority given to them under the clause.

Ann Winterton: Before I call the Minister, let me make it clear that I should be grateful if hon. Members who want to catch my eye would spring to their feet, because I will then be able to see clearly who wants to speak. It is good for the circulation and it makes life easier for me.

Caroline Flint: Thank you, Lady Winterton. I am looking forward to a constructive and productive week ahead.
Clause 4 will allow regulations to be made to designate additional smoke-free places and the circumstances in which they are to be smoke-free. That is important, because although the thrust of the Bill is  substantially to make workplaces and public places smoke-free, it emerged from the consultation and from other representations that there might be places that did not fit neatly into the definitions of “enclosed” or “substantially enclosed”, in respect of which flexibility to regulate should be available.
We have already discussed the sort of places that could be covered by regulation, setting out, for example, when a football ground or open-air concert venue is to be smoke-free. Such criteria may be based on the density of the audience or on the type of entertainment. Entrances to buildings have also been brought to our attention. People have voiced concerns about walking through a cloud of smoke on their way into a building.
I do, however, take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), and it is not the Government’s intention to pursue trivial matters. That is why we have made it clear in the clause that the regulations may provide for places to be smoke-free only in the circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a) to (d). The regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution, and there will also be consultation on the draft regulations.
I hope that I have clarified the thinking behind the clause and that the Committee will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Vehicles

Steve Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
We wish to change just one word of the Bill. I have discovered that irony does not work in print, so I had better not say that the rest of the Bill is perfect because I do not wish to be misunderstood. We wish to change “may” to “shall”. In the context of smoking bans in vehicles, we suggest that, in clause 5(1), rather than stating that authorities may make regulations, we make it a duty on them to do so.
It may be that we misunderstand the meaning of “may”, but we want enclosed public places to be smoke-free, and many vehicles will be more enclosed than areas that are, for example, only 51 per cent. enclosed. Therefore, smoking in an enclosed carriage or vehicle is potentially far more injurious to the health of members of the public or employees who work in those environments. By inserting “shall” instead of “may”, we hope to rule out a situation in which the relevant national authority does not make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free. In other words, the ban would not be complete if such regulations were not forthcoming. Essentially, we wish to place a duty on the relevant national authority, which includes this place in the case of England, to make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free.
We want clarity on whether the Government were trying to allow for the possibility that relevant national authorities may not make regulations by using “may” rather than “shall”.

Andrew Murrison: I hope that my intentions will be made plainer this time. I suspect that the Minister will say that the parliamentary draftsmen have insisted on using “may”, but I follow the argument made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). We have said throughout our deliberations that far too many powers are granted under regulation by the Bill, and that we would like to see more written into the Bill itself. However, we are quite clearly not going to get that. It would be good to hear what the Minister had in mind for the regulations that she may—or will—introduce, under the powers that she will have as a result of the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister—as she has at other times during our proceedings—set out the situations that she sees as being the subject of regulation.
So while we are not going to get too hung up on “may” or “shall”, we certainly understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Northavon, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

Caroline Flint: This, of course, is the first amendment of a group within this clause, so we will have further discussion about the intention—

Ann Winterton: Order. I think that the Minister may be slightly confused. This is an amendment on its own, not part of a group.

Caroline Flint: I was referring to the fact that there are further amendments that apply to this clause, and that we will, therefore, have further discussions as the debate continues on types of vehicles, and so forth. I do not necessarily wish to have the debates on the further amendments during discussion of this one, which covers a technical point. I do not wish to steal anyone’s thunder in relation to further amendments to clause 5.
The hon. Member for Westbury was correct to say that when I saw the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Northavon I asked officials what the significant reason was for using “may” rather than “shall”. I shall give a technical answer to that and at the same time try to elaborate a little more on the intention behind the clause.
Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales power to make regulations providing for smoke-free vehicles. We intend that public vehicles and vehicles for work use will be smoke-free. We believe that that will provide consistency with the protection from second-hand smoke in substantially enclosed public places and workplaces. The regulations will set out the descriptions of the vehicles that are to be smoke-free and the circumstances and specified areas in which they are to be smoke-free. Vehicles used at a place of work such as taxis, delivery vans, post vans, buses and  trains will be smoke-free unless they are for the sole use of the owner-driver. As I said earlier, I am sure that there will be more discussion on that when we come to later groups of amendments.
Whereas the clause provides a power to make such regulations, the amendment would place on us a duty to do so. I understand that it is normal practice to confer powers to make regulations in order to leave us some discretion as to when we introduce them, but I assure the hon. Member for Northavon that we intend to use the power to introduce regulations for smoke-free vehicles.
On a drafting point, advice from counsel is that if we were to say “shall” rather than “may”, we would also need to specify a deadline for the regulations to be made, which the amendment does not provide. If the purpose of the amendment is to seek clarity about our intention, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman about that intention.

Steve Webb: I do not know whether I am reassured by that reply or not. I take the Minister at her word when she says that the Government intend to introduce the necessary regulations, which is the main thing that we are concerned about. I can only speculate on whether, if the amendment had said, “The regulations shall be brought in at the same time as the coming into force of the Bill” or something like that, the Minister would have accepted it. However, given that it appears to be incomplete, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, after ‘vehicles’, insert
‘used for the carriage of the public for payment.’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, after second ‘vehicle’, insert
‘used for the transport of the public.’.
No. 78, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, after second ‘vehicle’, insert
‘used for the carriage of children, the public and for persons in the course of their employment’.
No. 51, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, after ‘train’, insert ‘bus, coach’.

Andrew Murrison: Amendments Nos. 9, 8 and 78 have been tabled to tease out the difference between private and public space, a theme that has run throughout our deliberations. The Bill appears to give the Secretary of State powers to institute a blanket ban on smoking in anything to do with transportation, and we must consider how that applies to private transport.
Most people would regard their cars as their own personal space. Certainly the way in which people drive suggests that that is the case, in London particularly. Whether that is a reasonable proposition or not, I think that most people would see a clear difference between smoking in their cars and smoking, for example, in a train or bus. We can perhaps discuss the public health implications of somebody driving and smoking at the same time. I would hazard a guess  that the chances of people killing themselves or others because they are distracted by their wretched cigarette are probably greater than the chances of doing themselves damage from inhaling the smoke, but that is perhaps a secondary issue. The fact is that there is a distinction between private vehicles and public vehicles, although it is not clear cut. In a private vehicle, a person may expose others to their smoke and perhaps we should consider that. In a sense, the matter is analogous to smoking in one’s own home. If people are not harming others through their actions, it should be seen in the same light. I can see how one could argue that the Bill is drafted in such a way that it allows a ban on smoking in one’s own home, but we understand that exemptions will be made under clause 3.
In a similar vein, we expect that the blanket ban on smoking in all forms of transportation to be subject to exemptions, and I hope that the Minister will make explicit what those exemptions will be. I am sure that they will include private vehicles, which are an extension of an individual’s private space.

David Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his amendment is too tightly drawn even for his own wishes? For example, if an employer provides transport for employees at no cost to them, that would not be caught by the amendment, but I expect the hon. Gentleman would want there to be a ban in such a situation. If a school bus were provided to take children to school for free with an adult escort, we would not want that adult to smoke in front of the children, but he or she would not be caught by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that and because he is eagle-eyed he will probably have spotted that amendment Nos. 8 and 78 are very similar. Amendment No. 78 is slightly better because it contains a reference to children. I am grateful to him for bringing up that point because another theme of our argument has been that children are in a special category and should be particularly protected from the ill effects of tobacco smoke, not only because it is bad for their health, but—probably more important in terms of public health—because it sends them the wrong message. We shall return to that point when we discuss a couple of new clauses tabled by my colleagues.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). In a sense, amendment No. 78, which was tabled after amendment No. 8, is an updated version and would deal with some of his concerns. The amendments are intended to set it on record that there is a clear difference between public and private. I am sure that the Minister intends that there should be such a distinction and I suspect that when she responds, she will make that distinction plain. The only purpose of my amendments is to act as a prompt for the Minister to make that distinction clear in order that we have some written record—although not binding because it will simply be recorded in Hansard—that the  Minister’s intention is not to introduce regulations at a later date that will ban smoking in all forms of transport. I cannot believe that that is her intention.
I have several concerns about the clause, but I hope that you will grant a clause stand part debate, Lady Winterton, so perhaps it would be appropriate if I left my further remarks until then.

Steve Webb: My understanding of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Westbury is that the three amendments are different permutations—A, B or C—or different ways of expressing an understandable view that he would not want the clause to prohibit smoking in private vehicles. I have some sympathy with that point. As the hon. Member for Stafford said in an intervention, the reference to payment in amendment No. 9 is not the right test. With regard to the harm done by passive smoking, just as it does not matter where food is served, it does not matter whether one pays for the journey or not. That seems to be a red herring.
Amendment No. 8 offers a general description of “transport of the public”, whereas amendment No. 78 refers to:
“children, the public and for persons in the course of their employment”.
As the hon. Member for Westbury acknowledges, the latter formulation is better than the former. I suspect that adding the word “children” is for effect, as children are part of the public. Even so, there would be no harm in adding it. I broadly agree with the thrust of what he said, which is that we want to be clear about what comes within the scope of the clause.
My question is about privately hired coaches. My parents are active members of an organisation called the University of the Third Age. One of the things that they do all the time is go on coach trips. They regularly hire a coach. If it is a private transaction—a private hire of a coach—can the members decide whether they want to smoke, as member of private clubs can? That would worry me, as the coach driver is an employee who would be exposed to smoke. My parents do not smoke, but their friends do. We could go on to debate whether it would be all right if the window were open and so on, but, in principle, a coach driver in such circumstances ought to have some protection. We worry about bar staff in an enclosed place. Yes, the driver can open a window, but perhaps he cannot if it is a rainy, horrible day. One can think of all sorts of arguments along those lines.
Therefore, simply saying “the public” or
“persons in the course of their employment”
does not cover all circumstances. The purpose of the coach trip is to convey not the coach driver but the passengers. I am worried that the coach driver would not be covered by amendment No. 78. It is not a works bus, but I am not clear what the implication is.
Our amendment No. 51 simply takes the list of examples in the clause and chucks in a few more, to use a technical term. We have added buses and coaches to
“train, vessel, aircraft and hovercraft”.
Can the Minister explain what a vessel is? Does “vessel” imply sea-going? I am slightly confused by that. I also wonder about the omissions. Do buses and coaches already come under some other legislation? Are we to take that as read?
Lists of examples worry me. We had them in a previous clause, and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) pointed out the need to be consistent and have all the examples or none of them. They do not add anything to the Bill. The same thing applies in this clause. I suppose the argument is that one could put something in the Bill and some quibbling lawyer—no disrespect to the hon. Member for Stafford—could come along and say that it was obvious that “vehicle” did not mean train, but one could have understood it to mean trains. Putting something in a Bill pre-empts that kind of thing. However, if we are going to do that, the list should be very long. We have already dealt with submarines. Amendment No. 51 would add buses and coaches.
I wonder what the basis was for deciding which things would be included and which would not. Our amendment adds a few things. The Minister may say, “Yes, it’s a fair cop. We should have put them in,” and, for the first time ever, I would have contributed words to the law of the land.

Caroline Flint: Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would restrict the vehicles that must be smoke-free to those that are used by the public. To be absolutely clear, regulations made under clause 5 will provide for smoke-free business and public transport. I said on amendment No. 52 that vehicles for business and public use should be smoke-free. We believe that that will provide consistency with the protection from second-hand smoke in enclosed and substantially enclosed public places and workplaces. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 8 and 9, as they would restrict the intention behind the clause.

Andrew Murrison: I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow at such an early stage. Would businesses that deliver goods be included? What about travelling salesmen? Would it be the Minister’s intention to include sole operators—individuals travelling around in vehicles—and prevent them from smoking? I suspect not.

Caroline Flint: As I indicated earlier, if a vehicle is for sole use, it would be down to the individual, but if the vehicle were used by others in the business—perhaps a workmate or someone who works for the individual—it should be smoke-free. In fact, I am pleased to say that the Road Haulage Association stated in response to the consultation this summer that
“most of our members do have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles”.
It also said that it had
“no objections to the main aim of the policy, to make virtually enclosed workplaces smoke free”.
I felt reassured that that organisation appreciated the need to encourage smoke-free policies, particularly in lorries and trucks. The cabs of lorries will be smoke-free unless they are for the sole use of an owner-driver. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s examples, I  imagine that the same logic would apply in other circumstances in which someone is the sole owner-driver but uses their car to go about their business.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister uses the phrase “owner-driver”. Does that mean that, if a lorry is driven by one person exclusively, but not owned by that person, it would be covered by the ban? If there are two individuals in the lorry—a driver and his mate—who both smoke, are they both not allowed to smoke because there are two of them? Are we talking about banning smoking all the time, or is the ban time-limited? A vehicle will probably have a change of usage. One week, one individual may drive it; next week, two people may drive it.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In those circumstances, we will look to employers to ensure that the vehicle is smoke-free. The problem arises when different employees use the vehicle; when somebody goes off shift and somebody else enters the vehicle. I will think about what he has said, but my inclination is that where a vehicle may be shared with other workers—not necessarily at the same time—the vehicle should be maintained as smoke-free if it fits the definition of public transport or a vehicle used for a business purpose.
Even if someone vacates a vehicle, smoke can linger and may affect those travelling later. We could get into a lot of complicated situations. We might have to start defining how long the cab should be vacant and whether it should be cleaned before another person uses it. I am not of a mind to increase the regulatory burden on businesses in that respect. As I have said, the Road Haulage Association has made constructive comments about smoke-free policies in its vehicles, in relation to vehicles that may be driven by smokers or non-smokers at one time or another.

Andrew Murrison: We have opened up quite a fruitful line of debate. Vehicles are pretty unique in that the ventilation tends to be extremely good. Cleansing the internal atmosphere of the cab of a lorry can be straightforward. One either winds down the window, or puts the ventilation on and completely changes the environment. One might be left with a horrible yellowing of the vehicle and a slight smell, which is unpleasant and a nuisance. I suspect that the Minister is touching on concerns related to nuisance and amenity, rather than public health. I would be grateful if she would explain why we cannot ensure the health of subsequent users of a vehicle that has been used by a smoker by means of adequate ventilation or winding down the window.

Caroline Flint: Winding down the window may depend on the temperature outside and whether it is raining or snowing. We cannot conclusively say that just winding down the window will help people to deal with the smoke in the cab of a lorry. We are pursuing a smoke-free policy for certain vehicles for the same reasons as we are applying the policy to buildings. It is a combination of the health imperative and the fact that we are talking about environments in which  people work. Given the comments that have been made during the consultation period, I do not believe that the policy that we are pursuing goes against the grain for organisations for which employing people to drive vehicles is their bread and butter. I believe that the policy has been welcomed. We believe that a vehicle that is passed from one employee to another should be smoke-free.
If we apply the Opposition’s logic to rooms as opposed to vehicles, an employee who is a smoker who works in a particular office where someone else will come along to work a different shift could be told, “You can smoke while you’re there on your own, but when somebody else comes in for their shift, there is no smoking.” If we started to draw those lines, all sorts of management issues could arise, which would require unnecessary and burdensome regulation to define the point between the smoker working there and the non-smoker coming on to his work roster. Would one expect an employee to fumigate or clean a vehicle? It is not as simple as winding down a window.

Nadine Dorries: Just for clarity, is the Minister saying that a commercial vehicle owned by a business or an organisation, whether or not it passes from employee to employee, would be a smoke-free environment? I am thinking of employees who smoke and drive a lorry, van or other vehicle all day. One person whom I know smokes and drives a lorry all day. Under this provision, he will no longer be allowed to smoke in that vehicle. He is in it for eight hours a day and, while he is there, the environment in the vehicle is his, not his organisation’s. Is the Minister now saying that second-hand smoke has a residual effect that causes harm? Is she saying that if somebody has smoked in a vehicle and somebody else gets into it at some stage, there will be residual effects from the driver’s smoking? That would take us into a new category.

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Caroline Flint: No, we are trying to define work space. Someone who works in a smoke-free building can avail themselves of opportunities to go outside the building to have a cigarette. By the same token, someone who is driving a car or a truck can avail himself of a break in which he can smoke.
I am not an expert in this area, but I suggest that lorry drivers are encouraged to take breaks from driving to maintain their safety standards and avoid getting tired. As lorry drivers and others are encouraged to take breaks, they have an opportunity to have a cigarette at the same time, if they wish. Therefore, we are not applying a different rule to this group of workers from the one that we are applying to workers in other enclosed spaces. If we were to follow the arguments made by the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) and for Westbury, we would establish an unnecessary distinction between working spaces.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire here. We are talking about a work space. While there are some limited exemptions in the Bill, I am not prepared to support an exemption in this respect. However, I must make it clear that we are not talking about private car space. The hon. Member for Westbury gave an example earlier about car sharing and pooling. If someone with a private car offers friends a lift into work, no payment is exchanged, so it is not a business transaction. Therefore it is for those people to decide whether to accept a lift.
The hon. Member for Northavon gave an example of private hire car use. If a driver was employed to drive the minibus for the hon. Gentleman’s parents’ organisation, I should expect the vehicle to be non-smoking. The exception would be where people hire a rental car for their own purposes. I think that I am right in saying that private vehicles rented without a driver have not been included in Ireland’s smoking ban. That approach is also being taken in Scotland. We view a private car that is hired without a driver as being closer to a private car than a vehicle in which someone is working. That example would resemble some exemptions that we have looked at for hotel rooms or rental cottages in which smoking may be allowed.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister touched on the point that I wanted to raise, but, if I may correct her, I have not yet mentioned car sharing and car pooling. She has, however, anticipated what I may mention later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Illsley.
I shall be grateful if the Minister can clarify what she means by hire cars. Her initial comments suggest that, if they are being used for business use, cars should be subject to a ban, but if they are for personal use they should not be. However, cars can be hired for business purposes. I suspect that if one were to go to Avis or another car rental company, they would say that the majority of cars are hired for business purposes. Would the Minister’s ban cover such usage or would car hire across the board be subject to an exemption?

Caroline Flint: I will reflect, outside the Committee, on what the hon. Gentleman has said about hiring cars for business use. My understanding is that, should an individual hire a private vehicle without a driver, that would constitute private use. Individuals may hire a vehicle to get to work or because their car has broken down. A travelling salesperson may need to get to the other side of the country. A company may need to get one of its personnel from one end of the country to the other. He or she wants to drive, but the company car has packed up, so a private vehicle is hired.
In the broadest sense, one could say that that car is being used for work. However, we would view that as private use for a set period. No driver or chauffeur is employed to transport that person from one place to another. Therefore, I still think it is down to the individuals who hire a private vehicle to decide whether they want to smoke in the car, provided they have not employed a driver. That is in line, as far as I understand, with provisions in Ireland and with the approach taken in Scotland.

Andrew Murrison: I know that we are getting into the minutiae, but this is important. The example of hire cars serves to expand on a more general case. For example, a company hires a car for its employees’ use over a prolonged period. It is intended that it will largely be used by one individual. However, because the individual does not own the car, other employees use it from time to time. What would happen in that situation? One could argue from what the Minister has said that that is not a private car; it is not owned by anyone, and it is being hired by a company for the use of an individual, who, for the purposes of this argument, is a smoker. However, that car could be used at some point by someone else. How would the legislation work in such a case?

Caroline Flint: If a company hired cars as part of its ongoing business, that would fall on the side of business use, rather than private use. Therefore, those cars should be smoke-free. In the situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, a company hires a fleet of vehicles as an integral part of running its business, rather than as a one-off. In those circumstances, that use would fall within the business definition that we will be attempting to determine through regulation. It is important to raise these scenarios in Committee, and we must work through the issues in order to make the draft regulations clear.
We are clear that we must make provision for public transport and business use. I am unsure at the moment whether the hon. Member for Westbury supports smoke-free policies that apply to business use.

Steve Webb: A general issue has been raised during this discussion. I am not sure what the Government’s factual position is. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked whether it was the Government’s position that being in a place where smoking had taken place was a health hazard. We heard the example of someone using a car after a smoker had used it. Do the Government have a clear position on that matter, and does that underlie their approach? Does it depend how long a person is in a place where someone has been smoking? Has scientific advice been given to the Government on that matter?

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Member for Northavon for raising that point. Early in our deliberations, we discussed ventilation. There was common acceptance by all hon. Members that, although one might get rid of the visible evidence of smoke, carcinogens can remain in the air. Therefore, the evidence suggests a continuing effect. The time that one spends in that atmosphere will also have an effect, so it is hard to set a completely prescriptive standard.
Part and parcel of this debate is the Government’s determination to work with what we know about effects on health, but also to address a cultural shift to a smoke-free environment, rather than a smoking environment with smoke-free exceptions. Not only the health evidence, about which we have learned more over a number of decades, but public requests for further regulation have been important to our  decisions. Given what we have said about other working environments that will be covered by a total ban, it would be illogical if we were to create a different environment for vehicles that are part of a working and business environment.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister is being ever so good, but, as she has acknowledged, this is an important debate, which is showing up a slight flaw in this part of the Bill. I had assumed that the measure was being driven by the need to promote public health, especially in relation to second-hand smoke. If I understood the Minister correctly, her thesis is that it would be too difficult under regulation to deal with the concerns that other hon. Members and I have raised in respect of the use of vehicles. The Minister unfortunately picked up on my reference to winding down the window, but it is easy to change the environment in a vehicle; it can be done very quickly. In London, however, that environment would be dreadful because of the muck in the streets, which one notices when driving into the capital.
As it is easy to change the environment in a vehicle quickly, it is an ideal place for allowing people who smoke and then people who do not smoke to work. Presumably, the Minister acknowledges that, yet she insists for totemic reasons that the complex matter of the change of usage of vehicles cannot be accommodated in regulations—it is easier just to say, “No smoking in here.” Will the Minister give the matter further thought, because it seems wrong to insist on a blanket ban when it is not informed by the need to protect public health from second-hand smoke directly? More particularly, my point is about the totemic, “You must not smoke” provision, which the Minister believes will influence people’s behaviour.

Caroline Flint: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman was last given a lift by someone who had been smoking but stopped when he got in the car because he was a non-smoker. I assure him that just winding down the window does not make the car smoke-free. In the vehicles that we are discussing, the issue would be whether to wind down the window, open the doors, use a vacuum cleaner—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is murmuring from a sedentary position.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to be invited to intervene by the Minister. She is touching on an important point; when she gets into a vehicle that has been used by a smoker—assuming that the smoker has not been puffing away for a little while—she will notice a very unpleasant smell. If the car has been used by a smoker for any length of time, she will also notice that the car is yellow and rather manky. That is what the Minister is picking up on, but if she is saying that that implies that there is a danger to a person who accepts a lift from a smoker, she must cite the evidence on which she is relying and confound me. I think that she is saying that she objects to the smell, but the smell does not necessarily imply that there is smoke that is likely to be injurious to the person’s health.

Caroline Flint: I think the evidence is that smoke persists. Let us think of some real-life scenarios. Someone may have smoked in their truck for five hours on the way to a depot. There may be a fast turn-around and the truck may be taken out of the depot by another driver, who may be a non-smoker. I am not convinced that it is as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. After that turn-around, the person who is expected to drive that vehicle—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to say something, I will give way to him, but if he just wants to interrupt, I will not.

Andrew Murrison: I am sorry; I must stop chuntering. The Minister was right to pick me up on it. The hon. Lady is hypothesising, but she does not appear to have any evidence. I would expect her to say that trials had been done in lorry cabs after someone had been smoking for five hours, that she could cite the evidence that had been accrued and that that was why the Government were insisting on the measure.
So far, the Minister has told me what she thinks, but she has given me no evidence, which is what we need.

Caroline Flint: Well, as I said, we recognise that smoke persists and the evidence that we use is provided by those who warn us of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Even when the visible evidence of smoke disappears, the carcinogens can be left in the air. That is one of the reasons why we do not intend to allow smoking in pubs at one point in the day and not allow it at another point.
Let me give another example. A security guard may work alone for a shift in a small cabin. Even though he opens the window, are we saying that he should be allowed to smoke because he is alone in that room for an eight-hour shift? The worker who does the next eight-hour shift has to work in that environment. I do not think that it is appropriate to allow that. The same logic should be applied to cabs.
As I said earlier, the Road Haulage Association has advised that
“most of our members do have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles”.
I presume that that is because the RHA recognises the health issues and also the issues of comfort, which are an important part of this topic, too. I am pleased to say that a number of firms have voluntarily taken action in this area. We intend to apply the same rationale to vehicles as we apply to enclosed environments—to buildings.

Nadine Dorries: Will the Minister clarify where the evidence comes from? She said the evidence came from those who provided information, but can she be more precise about the evidence that residual smoke actually does harm? I am an ex-smoker, and I believe that it is easy rapidly to change the atmosphere in a car, particularly in modern vehicles. It is not just a matter of opening the windows; the air-conditioning or the ventilation systems can be used, so that a clean environment can be made inside a car.
If the Minister is going to be so prescriptive as to ban smoking in vehicles, we need the evidence to justify doing that, and it needs to be hard evidence. We have only just reached the point at which the case has been  made that passive smoking harms. How do we get to the point at which there is residual harm from passive smoking? There must be evidence to back that up.

Caroline Flint: Well, funnily enough, evidence for that was cited by the hon. Member for Westbury earlier in the debate; there are dangers from second-hand smoke, whether or not someone is in the room at the time the smoke is being produced. We know that 95 per cent. of deaths from second-hand smoking occur in the home. That happens even where parents smoke in one room and not another, because smoke drifts and the carcinogens in smoke can be retained within a room’s atmosphere.
I am happy to write to hon. Members about where we get the information on this from. The chief medical officer has been mentioned; he is in favour of a total ban. People have been asking us why we have not accepted that. In fact, we have accepted a great deal of evidence from the CMO, but there are other people who must also be listened to.
A number of studies have been carried out on deaths caused by second-hand smoking in the workplace. I find it interesting that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire raises this topic. Earlier in our discussions, she seemed to be inclined towards a total ban, but she now seems to be saying that she does not believe that people working in shared vehicles should have the same opportunity to be in a smoke-free environment as employees working in a shared building or hut.

Nadine Dorries: I want to correct that. I am in favour of either a total ban or no ban. What I am not in favour of is the dog’s dinner that we have in part 1 of the Bill. It is a mish-mash.

Caroline Flint: Well, I am glad that that has been clarified. I suppose that that is why we are the party for progress and the Conservative party is not.

Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister allow me?

Caroline Flint: It is easy to sit on the fence and, while acknowledging the dangers of smoking, to be prepared to vote against a Bill that proposes a ban which, even if it is not a total ban, will extensively open up the opportunity for people to live and work in a smoke-free atmosphere. I find that logic totally cock-eyed. I think it stands in the way of progress; it is not a progressive measure.

Crispin Blunt: The view is shared by at least 58 of the Minister’s colleagues who appear to have signed an early-day motion to that effect.

Caroline Flint: I have more respect for those colleagues than for the hon. Lady’s position. As I have said, I totally understand; the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has the same view about a total ban. Although the provisions may not be all that  they want, people who aspire to a total ban such as Cancer Research UK, ASH, the Royal College of Physicians and the local authorities, do not argue against introducing them. There is a world of difference between them and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and perhaps Opposition Front-Bench Members, who say that they want a total ban or nothing at all. That does not stack up.
The hon. Lady says that she is a nurse, and I respect that, but can she cite a medical organisation that says that if we cannot have a total ban they want nothing at all? I do not think that she will find one, because they recognise that the Bill is a huge step forward.

Ann Winterton: Order. I think that we should get away from Second Reading and come back to the amendment.

Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Illsley. I am sure that we will have plenty of opportunities later to discuss—

Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I will not.

Andrew Murrison: I want to help the Minister.

Caroline Flint: Well, I do not think that I need the hon. Gentleman’s help.
Amendment No. 51 would include buses and coaches in the smoke-free provisions. The list of vehicles is not intended to be exhaustive but to provide examples. I understand that those examples were put down because they are not the usual ones in the mix. I also asked why buses and coaches were not included in the list. I want to make it clear that any vehicle open to the public will be smoke-free. It is sometimes difficult in the here and now to think about what vehicle could exist down the line that would not fit into the usual categories. It is partly a safety mechanism so that we are not caught out later on. The vast majority of public transport is already smoke-free.
We will not accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon partly because we do not want to fall into the trap of adding more examples to the Bill, because they are meant only to be examples. I will think a little more about the issue of buses and coaches. Although I do not want to fall into the trap of adding things only to have someone say, “What about this one?”, I will reflect a little on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
A question was asked about vessels. My understanding, and I am not an expert on boats and so on, is that the provision is meant to cover those vessels that may be used on lakes and rivers. Of course, that covers quite a range—off the top of my head, it includes barges, dinghies and boats; it is clear that I am not particularly a sailing person.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister has cited some riparian examples. Is it her intention then that “vessel” should refer merely to craft on rivers or lakes, or does she mean the open seas as well?

Caroline Flint: Of course, there are situations on the open seas to which the provision would apply. That is why we will get into some of the issues of UK jurisdiction. I understand that the provision is meant primarily to deal with inland situations, but it could apply elsewhere. I am happy to find more information for the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

Andrew Murrison: It is an important point; it is not merely semantics. A lot of vessels sail on both open seas and inland waters, so it is difficult to make a distinction between inland vessels and those on the high seas, so to speak. If we are to cite “vessel”, although we are not sure whether we need to do so, given the Minister’s previous remarks, she needs to be clear about what she means.

Caroline Flint: As I said, I gave examples of types, not an exhaustive list. In regulations we would want to make it clearer what types of vehicles we were talking about, and how they would apply. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is important to be clear about what would be permissible for vessels on inland waterways, rather than the sea. We have been working through some ideas about what policies should apply when people are in UK waters, rather than when they leave them. We have been considering those matters by looking at what has happened in Ireland, and thinking about our responsibilities in the devolved Administrations.
I understand that the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 extends to internal waters, territorial sea and international waters. We shall deal with a group of amendments of my own shortly.
Amendment No. 78 would ensure that every type of vehicle used for the carriage of children, the public and persons in the course of their work would be smoke-free. Although all business and public transport will be smoke-free, the regulations may exempt classes of vehicles, such as private and rental cars and vans—vehicles for private use. We cannot ensure that children travelling in private cars will not be exposed to smoke, despite our efforts to inform the public about the dangers of second-hand smoke. This is about choosing health.
One of our surveys earlier this year showed that one third of parents still smoked in front of children in their own car. However, as with homes, although we would encourage parents not to smoke in private cars with children present, we should not prescribe that in legislation, so we do not support the amendment. However, it is fair to say, as the hon. Member for Northavon said, that as public transport and business vehicles will be smoke-free, children and adults will benefit from that policy, as they will from our ban on smoking in most workplaces and public places. To refer back to an earlier discussion, that will have an enormous impact on the environment in which children play, visit and travel in their everyday lives.
Vehicles used as a place of work such as taxis, delivery vans, post vans, buses and trains will be smoke-free, unless they are for the sole use of the  owner-driver. It is necessary to ensure that we have the same logical approach to vehicles as workplaces and public places as we have to buildings.

Andrew Murrison: I was not expecting to spend so much time on this group of amendments. We have had a more provocative debate than I expected, which is a good thing. The Minister said that she would think about one or two things that we have discussed. It is evident from her remarks that some shades of grey have been highlighted by this set of amendments, so I am pleased that she has undertaken to give the matter further thought.
There is great scope for confusion and a degree of unfairness. This group of amendments has highlighted the difference between public health measures, measures designed to educate the public and those that are designed to remove a nuisance or improve amenity. Those three things have come together in this group, particularly the unique capacity for changing the environment in vehicles. I do not accept what the Minister says, and I am sure that she feels she is skating on thin ice too.
I have a suggestion. The Minister would not let me intervene at one stage, which is understandable as she has been more than generous during the debate on this group of amendments. I was going to suggest that she might ask the Transport Research Laboratory, if she has not already done so, whether it has any facts and figures on the environment within vehicles. If they do not, perhaps she might commission some simple straightforward studies to establish the persistence of second-hand smoke in vehicles—and how it can be expunged from them through the simple expedient of briefly switching on the ventilation. Then the Minister could come back and say that she had some evidence-based regulations based on the persistence of smoke that may be harmful to people entering vehicles after a smoker. That would be very useful, and we should all stand here, shout hurrah and support those regulations—because they were based on evidence.
It is absolutely not our intention to expose employees to other people’s second-hand smoke. However, we would like some evidence on which to base the regulations. The Bill gives Ministers powers to make bucketloads of regulations; we are naturally cautious about giving powers to the Secretary of State, and would want any regulations that emerge to be based on good reason and good evidence. Everything we do these days in medicine seems to be evidence-based, and rightly so, but the Minister appears to have no evidence for suggesting that regulation should pan out as she describes.
I commend the Transport Research Laboratory to the Minister. I am no expert on transport issues, but from my dealings with it, it would seem well equipped to offer the Minister the advice that she needs. I am a little surprised if Ministers have not consulted the TRL already—although I may be wrong; perhaps the Minister has done that. If she can say so, my mind will be more at ease.
We have dealt with vessels in this set of amendments, but not yet touched upon pleasure craft. I am accustomed to taking my holidays, from time to time, in a fine pleasure craft on the Norfolk broads. I wonder how the promised regulations might pan out for pleasure craft—which, if taken beyond Great Yarmouth, can become craft on the open sea; hence my earlier interest.
I, for one, do not particularly want to take a pleasure craft over from someone who has been smoking all the previous week, but I fully accept that once I have been up and down a broad once or twice, all the smoke that may have been in the craft is likely to have been expunged. I would not appreciate the yellow ceilings and the persistent smell of second-hand tobacco, but I doubt whether that nuisance would be a public health issue affecting my family or me. It might reduce my enjoyment of that pleasure craft and that holiday, but that is a separate issue—as we have said several times in the Committee.
The amendments touch upon hire cars. Again, there is some confusion about hire for business or pleasure use, and hiring by large employers whose employees may use cars solo, or on occasion share them. The Minister attributed to me remarks about car sharing and pooling, but I have not actually made those remarks yet; we can come to them at a later stage. The Minister has made some useful remarks, and has proved uncharacteristically willing to go away and think about some elements of this matter. In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
‘()The power to make regulations under this section is not exercisable in relation to—
(a)any ship or hovercraft in relation to which regulations could be made under section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21) (safety and health on ships), including that section as applied by any Order in Council under section 1(1)(h) of the Hovercraft Act 1968 (c. 59), or
(b)persons on any such ship or hovercraft.
()In section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21), at the end add—
(a)for the appointment by the Secretary of State of persons to enforce the smoking provisions (whether in respect of ships generally or for any particular case or purpose), and for the removal of any person so appointed,
(b)for such persons (if they are not surveyors of ships appointed under section 256) to have the powers of such surveyors for the purposes of their enforcement functions,
(c)for any such persons to have, for the purposes of their enforcement functions, powers corresponding to those which authorised officers have under paragraphs 2(b) to (e), 3 and 4, as read with paragraphs 5 and 9, of Schedule 2 to the Health Act 2006 (which confers powers of entry, etc., on authorised officers of enforcement authorities in relation to the enforcement of the provisions of that Act in relation to smoking),
(d)in relation to an offence of smoking in a place where smoking is prohibited under the smoking provisions, for purposes corresponding to those of section 8 of and Schedule 1 to the Health Act 2006 (which provide for the giving by authorised officers of penalty notices in respect of such an offence).
In this subsection, “smoking” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.” ’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to debate Government amendment No. 73.

Caroline Flint: This is the first Committee on which I have served with the hon. Member for Westbury, but I think that I can safely say that in all the Committees that I have served on—and because I have been at the Home Office, I have probably served on somewhat more than he has—I always try to be open to discussion and contribution. It is always worth knowing where people are coming from with their amendments, but I am also always keen to show where the dividing lines are in policy between the Government and the Opposition.
Amendment No. 72 restricts the power to make regulations on smoke-free conditions for vessels and hovercraft under clause 5. It provides the power to extend regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so that the Secretary of State for Transport may make smoke-free provision for vessels. That will be equivalent to the provisions that will be introduced by part 1 of and schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. Amendment No. 73 excludes from the definition of “premises” navigable offshore installations.
These are technical amendments. We have decided that the smoke-free provisions of the Bill should be amended so that they do not duplicate provision that the Secretary of State for Transport may make by regulations under section 85 of the 1995 Act. The Secretary of State may make such provision for ships, hovercraft and, while they are being navigated to their sites, offshore installations. I understand that the Secretary of State is willing to make smoke-free provision for vessels throughout UK waters by such regulations. To enable that to happen, the 1995 Act requires amendment so that, in particular, fixed penalty procedures may apply to smokers who contravene smoking restrictions. It is therefore desired to amend part 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply duplicate provision for England and Wales that may be made under section 85 of the 1995 Act. That Act can be amended so that regulations under it can make smoke-free provision equivalent to that in part 1 of and schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. As I said, the amendment is technical; it does not change our intention.
With regard to consultation on issues relating to vehicles, I should say that the Department for Transport is just one of the Departments that we have consulted on the measures and asked for their views on how the legislation should apply.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister’s comments are reassuring. She rattled through her brief on the amendments and gave us assurances that they do not  introduce anything particularly exciting or novel, and of course I trust her implicitly, so that must be the case. That said, will she confirm that the Secretary of State for Transport will make regulations that mirror the regulations that she intends to introduce? Perhaps she could also give us assurances about the timing of them. It seems sensible to ensure that regulations relating to the things for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible tally pretty well with the measures for which the Secretary of State for Health is responsible.
We covered the difficult question of submarines at an earlier stage. I was not here at the time, which was a great pity, because I would have enjoyed that bit. It would be interesting to know what other measures the Minister thinks might be duplicated by regulations that she is minded to introduce in future. I am thinking particularly of the areas that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. It would be helpful to have assurances that, as with the Secretary of State for Transport, those areas will be covered in a timely way by the Secretary of State for Defence.
I always get confused about the difference between the status of offshore installations when they are being towed to their intended destinations and when they are in situ. It would be useful to hear the Minister’s understanding of how these regulations and others will affect life on board an offshore installation. Particularly given the sad events of the past few days, we are all reminded of the combustibility of such installations. Many of us are quite surprised that smoking should be allowed on them in any case, but equally we must accept that they are home for people, sometimes for many weeks. I suspect that they are a special case in terms of permitting smoking, as Her Majesty’s ships and submarines are, but it would be useful if the Minister commented on how she thinks the smoking ban will affect offshore installations that are in situ.

Crispin Blunt: I want to follow up my hon. Friend’s remarks, particularly as regards the personal responsibilities of respective Secretaries of State. The divisions in the Cabinet before the Bill was presented to the House were extremely well publicised, to the slight discomfort of the Government, and recognised by the Secretary of State for Health on Second Reading. Could the Minister tell us precisely where the Secretary of State for Transport’s assurance has come from? Does it come as a personal minute from him? I assume that different Cabinet Ministers are likely to bring different perspectives to this matter.
It is fairly clear that if the current Secretary of State for Defence, who lists both Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Health among his bewildering range of former posts, were in charge of implementing the regulations he would be rather disinclined to do so. We all know on what side of the argument he sat on the debate in Cabinet. Could the Minister explain precisely how personal her assurance was from the Secretary of State for Transport? Was it directly from him, or was it from representatives in his Department?

Caroline Flint: I will deal with the last point first. The Bill on Second Reading represented the collective decision of the Cabinet—the collective will of the Cabinet, including the Secretary of State for Transport. Therefore, this is the Bill that we are all supporting, even though some people may have had different views before reaching this point. There has been consultation between officials in each Department on the Government amendments and about how the measures affect different Departments, what legislation is already on the statute books, and so on. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and other members of the Committee that I would not have tabled them unless I felt that they had the Secretary of State’s support and that the Secretary of State supported the measures in the Bill on smoke-free areas.
The hon. Member for Westbury mentioned timing. It is our assumption that the Secretary of State for Transport will mirror regulations and timing will be consistent with the Department of Health regulations. We hope that at the same time as regulations on substantially enclosed public places are brought forth, similar regulations will be brought forth on vehicles of one form or another. We will be working to ensure that these all come together.
On oil rigs, as we said in earlier discussions, just like Ireland and Scotland in their deliberations, we have had to weigh up the issues that arise where a place is both a person’s residence from which he cannot easily escape and his workplace. Clearly there are overriding health and safety issues involved in stepping outside the enclosed space on to an oil rig or the deck of a ship. That is why we are working to create smoke-free environments indoors on these installations, recognising that for obvious reasons people cannot simply step outdoors.
We are in discussion with the Ministry of Defence about some of the detailed policy issues that are peculiar to the forces. We are looking at how the policy and exemptions would work in a military context. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence recognises the need to replicate in a service context the aim of the policy as it applies to a civilian situation. The discussions are ongoing. The MOD is also considering its own policies on the health of its work force, and I must say that it has been very engaged in some of our discussions and very helpful. In fact, many services have already considered some of the issues that we are addressing under this legislation, which is to be welcomed.

Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister say exactly at what stage her discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence are and whether they are leading to smoke-free ships and submarines? A very good argument could be made for such a situation. My experience is that trying to persuade sailors in particular to give up smoking is exceptionally difficult, and I would be fascinated to know what stage her discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence have reached.

Caroline Flint: We acknowledge that sailors could be at sea for some time and that the opportunity to go to an entirely smoke-free area on a ship or a submarine  could be limited, so we are using our discussions with colleagues in the MOD and listening to the views of those in the Navy to see how we might make this work. We will not necessarily pursue the option of submarines or ships that are entirely smoke-free, but we are considering ways of allowing people to smoke within the confines of those vessels while allowing those who do not smoke to enjoy their leisure time on board without being in a smoky atmosphere. I cannot add any more at this stage. As I said, we are working through the issue in discussions, which have been constructive and realistic so far.

Crispin Blunt: This is obviously a subject in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westbury and I have some expertise. As a former surgeon commander with a keen interest in public health, he may have a rather different perspective from others in the chain of command. Will the Minister tell us when she expects to be able to publish the results of her discussions with the MOD, presumably in the form of regulations and preferably in draft so that we may have the chance to examine them informally before they are presented to the House?
I suggest that it should be left to the chain of command in the military to decide the matter, as there are often particular operational circumstances to take into account. My hon. Friend is an expert on matters at sea, but as we know from Northern Ireland as it has been and Iraq as it is, serving on operations and training for operations present very particular problems when trying to protect the rights of smokers and non-smokers, particularly if people live on operations for a long time and those operations become their home.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. As he may know, I have taken part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I had a limited but very enlightening time in Iraq and in Canada with the Army. I believe that a relative of the hon. Gentleman was the commander, although I am not sure whether he is still there.

Crispin Blunt: He has moved on.

Caroline Flint: I have some experience of what it is like to be far away from home and living in pretty rough circumstances on active operations or, for that matter, on training. That is what the Canadian experience is all about. I cannot tell the Committee exactly where we are up to, but I will update myself and report back on the latest situation if that will be helpful.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Westbury, I understand that if an installation is in situ, responsibility for it falls under this Bill and its regulations, and if it is being towed, it is covered by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I think that I have offered hon. Members explanations and assurances on  the issues that they have raised during the debate. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support the Government amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Steve Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 38, at end add—
‘(4)Regulations shall provide for prescribed vehicles to be smoke-free wherever a journey does not end under the jurisdiction of the same national authority as the national authority in which it began.’.
In the context of bans on smoking in vehicles, this is a probing amendment about what might loosely be called cross-border journeys. There are two sorts of journey about which I should be interested in the Minister’s clarification. I discussed the amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), who is unable to be with us at the moment because he is speaking in a debate about children’s hospices in Westminster Hall. He, as a Welshman serving Bristol, and I, as the Member who has the two Severn bridges in his constituency, have some interest in the English-Welsh dimension.
On the assumption that the Welsh ban, such as it is, is likely to be more comprehensive than the English one—I do not know whether that is true of vehicles, because I do not know what the regulations will be—there is the possibility of a disjunction. I know relatively little about the English-Scottish border, but it seems very likely that the Scottish ban will be more comprehensive than the English one. That prompts me to ask what will happen when vehicles cross the boundaries between areas that have different rules on bans.
Our amendment suggests that somebody has to arbitrate. If a journey starts in, say, Chepstow and finishes in my constituency or in Bristol, will the rules that matter be those that apply where the journey starts or those in force where it ends—or those that obtain where it is at any given moment? If there is any inconsistency between the English and Welsh regulations, will people have to stub out their cigarettes as they go across the Severn bridge—that is not actually a border, but the Committee will understand what I mean—or, indeed, will they suddenly light up as soon as they are clear of Welsh airspace? What will apply on cross-border journeys?
One set of issues arises with coaches, another on ferries, and so on. We have discussed ships, but I am thinking of the example of a ferry that sails from England to the Irish Republic, where there is a fairly comprehensive ban. What would be the procedure and, again, is there a point at which one is in international waters and the rules are different? I am rather hazy about the situation. The Committee might regard this as a minor issue, but people will make journeys from one place to another in which the rules are different, and I want to know what will happen.
The intention of our amendment—I do not know whether this would be its effect—was to point out that, because there are subsidiary authorities within the United Kingdom and we cannot say that one takes precedence over the other, the rules of the national authority in which the journey began should apply.  There has to be some basis for determining which set of rules should apply, and we suggest that one. As we have not seen the regulations we do not know whether they will be consistent with regulations about vehicle journeys in different parts of the UK. There is every chance that they will not be, so some sort of priority setting will be required, and the amendment seeks to find out what it will be.

Andrew Murrison: This is an interesting amendment. The hon. Member for Northavon is right to highlight the difficulty that the devolved settlement has thrown up on this matter, as it has on a myriad of other things. I am not too clear whether his intention is purely to limit the provision to the United Kingdom or whether it has to do with wider jurisdictions. If the latter is the case, I suspect that he is likely to find that it falls foul of international law.
This is a related point. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman’s party is in favour of liberalising the use of cannabis in private places, so it is an intriguing conundrum whether his proposal extends to private vehicles. Perhaps he will now or at some future time clarify whether it applies to that particular element of smoking. He is trying to hit smoking on the head, but apparently that does not extend to cannabis. Does his proposal apply specifically to smoking cannabis in vehicles? If it does, perhaps he might like to think through the consequences of that particular part of liberalisation.
Essentially, I suspect that this has to do with a legalistic matter and that the Minister will probably say that it is a matter for the devolved settlement and that those of us who are foolish enough to smoke will stub out cigarettes when crossing the Severn bridge.

Caroline Flint: Obviously, our intention is to expect all public and business transport to remain smoke-free while in England. As I understand it, the same policy is being pursued by Scotland, and the Welsh are interested in pursuing a similar one. At the end of our deliberations and if the legislation goes through, this should be a seamless area of policy.
Having said that, it is difficult to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon because of the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury: this could apply beyond the UK. That would raise the question of who would be responsible if somebody went to Belgium or France and did something against the laws that we have here. We are talking about smoking, but we could be talking about speeding or other offences. It is an offence to use drugs while driving; there are offences to deal with that. Testing for drugs is being developed further and further.

Andrew Murrison: Of course it is an offence to use drugs while driving. I was thinking, for example, of passengers who might be using substances in the vehicle or people doing so when the car is not under way. There are all sorts of permutations.

Caroline Flint: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a doctor, so I am sure that he is aware of the impact of inhaling cannabis smoke—but we will save that discussion for another day.
It is appropriate that we recognise that vehicles adhere to the legislation of the jurisdiction in which they are travelling. That applies when they are in England and once they have left England. A coach or train crossing from England to Scotland would be abiding by Scottish law once it had passed into Scotland. The hon. Member for Northavon will be aware that GNER has decided that its trains will be smoke-free. To be fair, our legislation and the Scottish legislation is having an impact on how public transport operators are defining their services. The Bill is best left as it is, without the amendment, which would cause confusion about the Government’s role in determining regulations in Scotland and Wales. It potentially complicates matters involving travelling by public transport or vehicles further afield.

Steve Webb: The Minister is therefore saying that regulations in Scotland, Wales and England will probably be the same, but if they are not the question is where the vehicle happens to be—that if there were any difference, there might or might not be lighting up at the border. Would the Minister envisage that a ferry to the Republic of Ireland from England would be subject to whatever the English rule might be as long as it was in English territorial waters? Then, if the rules were different in different territories, there could be an announcement saying, “We’re out of English waters” or, conversely, “We’re entering English waters; you can now light up”—or whatever. It is quite conceivable that the rules will be different in England and in the Republic of Ireland or France or wherever. Is the Minister essentially saying that the boundary is English territorial waters, and that that will determine, potentially, whether people can smoke?

Caroline Flint: These are the discussions that we are working through. Those who cross territorial waters constantly have to navigate their way round which jurisdiction they are in. That applies on this issue, too. As I said, ferries will be made subject to regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act. We are still in discussion with the Scottish Executive about what would apply in the waters around Scotland. I am not trying to fob off the Committee; those are some of the issues that we are working through to determine the best outcomes.
The hon. Gentleman gave us some scenarios and asked how someone would know whether they were across the border. I can, for the most part, assure the Committee that we do not envisage having border controls or checking people as they cross. As I said in our discussions on other parts of the Bill, a huge amount of this is about public and self-enforcement and creating a different culture in which smoking is restricted as part of the way in which we live our lives. Clearly, if someone is caught or a complaint is made, depending on the rules and laws of the jurisdiction  concerned, they could find themselves liable for a fixed penalty notice or prosecution. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Steve Webb: I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. My understanding is that the Minister is saying that the issue should not be a problem because the regulations will probably be consistent. To the extent that the regulations will vary, it will matter where someone is; then, the criterion would be where someone was when they did the action. One can imagine a scenario in which someone lights up, and a person says, “I’m sure we passed a border sign”, and someone else disputes it; then there might be some discussion about which country they were in. However, I am reassured by the suggestion that the regulations will be consistent. Likewise, on ferries there are presumably other regulations, not just smoking ones, that have to be applied according to national rules in some places and international ones in others. I also accept that the amendment probably does not achieve what we intended, so that is two reasons to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Ann Winterton: I call Dr. Murrison.

Andrew Murrison: Well anticipated, Mr. Illsley; I had hardly moved a muscle when you called me.
I shall try to be as brief as possible, as the Minister will be glad to hear. We have had a good debate on the clause. Vehicles are clearly important, and we must of course cover them in the Bill. As ever, our concerns have to do with regulations and giving the Secretary of State all sorts of powers to do pretty well whatever she, or her successors, might wish. We would prefer there to be more in the Bill.
In our discussion, we identified one or two areas to which the Minister, by her own admission, needs to give a little more thought to improve the Bill. We have had some difficulty over definitions, and we wondered why trains, vessels, aircraft and hovercraft were included but not other forms of transportation, notably buses. I would have thought that buses would be the first category that Ministers would put in, particularly given their stated ambitions—so far unfulfilled—to reduce health inequalities. Surely target groups use buses more than hovercraft or aircraft, yet the Minister has chosen to cite aircraft, hovercraft, vessels—we are not entirely clear what vessels are—and trains. We have to be a little bit clearer about what we mean by vessel. I am pleased that the Minister has given us some explanation of what she understands that term to mean, but I am still slightly confused about how I will fare next time with my motor cruiser on the Norfolk broads, and how I will be fixed with respect to that craft or vessel being smoking or non-smoking when the legislation comes  into force in a few months’ time. My rather pathetic little example might be indicative of other examples that may entertain lawyers in years to come.
I hope that the Minister will look at that area a little more closely in collaboration with the Transport Research Laboratory to find out how to make the regulations that will result from the Bill slightly more evidence based. I am surprised that she has not referred to any evidence to support the assertions that she has made during debate on the clause, so I hope that she will give the matter more thought.
It seems to me that it would be quite straightforward to ask for some studies to be done to determine how quickly air can be cleared from, for example, the cabs of lorries. If the Minister can do that, and comes back with evidence that that is too difficult and takes too long, we will be enthusiastic in our support for her measures on public health grounds. My party has made it clear that we support the element of the legislation that relates to workplaces, and vehicles are no different in that respect.
More thought needs to be given to the status of vehicles that are hired for the purposes of employment use. The Minister has indicated that that is so. I think that she said that some further thought would be given to that specific case, as to others that we have identified during our deliberations this morning. That is to the good.
Our aim in considering this legislation must be to try to keep as much away from lawyers—with due respect to the hon. Member for Stafford and his colleagues—as we can. We must make sure that the legislation and the regulations that arise from it are as watertight as possible, so that we do not provide a bean feast for the legal profession, who will otherwise chance upon things such as my pleasure cruiser on the Norfolk broads and will make lots of money at the expense of all concerned.
It is incumbent on the Minister to look closely at the examples that I and other hon. Members have raised in this discussion and elsewhere, to ensure that we cover, as far as we can, the possible grey areas, and areas in which there is some debate about the meaning, as articulated in the Bill and in subsequent regulations.
The Minister may find herself at some future point drawing up the regulations and being responsible for them. I hope that she will then remember the hours that she spent in the Committee with all this helpful advice winging around and, if we can get something in her mind about the way to craft those regulations to ensure that they are not likely to prove difficult in courts of law, that is all to the good. We will, in that case, have done our job quite well.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining offshore installations to me. However, I am still unclear as to how the Secretary of State for Defence will approach the area for which he is now responsible. We must assume that, given his previously stated position, he will be reluctant to insist on bans within his area of responsibility. If I were a smoker in the army, navy or air force, I do not think that I would be too worried about my horrible habit being curtailed too quickly,  because I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be reluctant to ban smoking in defence settings. That issue concerns the public health of the men and women of our armed forces, but equally I take account of the Minister’s comments about having to respect the fact that their workplace is often also where they live. That highlights the conflict in the Bill between the rights of individuals, particularly in what might be regarded as their private space, and the need to promote public health. It is like the seatbelt conundrum—do we legislate for people’s own good or respect their right to be competent individuals and to make choices for themselves? This is slightly different because we are talking about an activity that impinges directly on other people. In the armed forces, people are not trivially or casually exposed, but may be in close proximity to second-hand smoke. I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister is prepared to consider this matter and to try to reconcile the libertarian view with public health considerations.
I shall wrap up there, Mr. Illsley. I said that I would be brief, and the hour is long. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Caroline Flint: We have had an interesting debate. There are some issues on which the Committee would like more information, which I shall endeavour to provide. The hon. Member for Westbury spoke about his pleasure cruise. In such a situation, the rules would apply in the same way as with the hire of a private vehicle. If the hon. Gentleman hired a vehicle for private use by his family and did not engage an employee to drive the vehicle, a similar provision to what we discussed in relation to the hospitality industry and hotel rooms and cottages would apply. We are specifically considering public transport and vehicles used for businesses. We believe that the same parameters for the ban on smoking in workplaces should apply to workplaces that happen to be a moving vehicle.
I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said about our work with the Ministry of Defence. On his point about the difficulty for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we should not lose sight of the fact that my right hon. Friends the Defence Secretary and the Health Secretary have both worked to introduce legislation to ban smoking for the first time in a variety of public and work spaces. In his previous role as Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was the instrument behind the “Choosing Health” White Paper, and therefore set in motion the process that brought us to where we are today. We are saying for the first time that voluntary regulation is not enough and that we need legislation to restrict smoking. I do not think that anyone can take that away from him.

Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will have the opportunity later to raise further points.
I take this opportunity to correct something that I said vis-à-vis installations in situ and being towed. I should have said that installations and movable  structures moving under their own power are covered under merchant shipping legislation. I understand that if they need to be towed, they are not ships and would therefore be covered by regulations made under this Bill. I hope that I have clarified matters for the Committee. I have learned a lot about merchant shipping legislation, and have certainly thought more about such situations than I ever had before. I wanted to clarify that because I did not want to feel that I had misled the Committee in any way. With installations that are being towed, the installation would not come under merchant shipping legislation, but the vehicle towing it obviously would be. I hope that that is clear to everyone, and that the Committee will support the clause, which further shows the Government’s intention to provide, in legislation, for more public places and workplaces to be smoke-free.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - No-smoking signs

Steve Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, leave out from ‘he’ to end of line 30 and insert
‘took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence not to commit the offence’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 50, in clause 6, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (7).

Steve Webb: On the assumption that there will be a whole or partial ban in various sorts of premises, the way in which that is indicated to those who work there or are customers there is important. I suspect that we shall come to the wider issues of signage later, but the amendments deal with the basis on which somebody charged with failing to ensure that signs are displayed can offer a defence.
To follow the logic of that, subsection (6) sets out the circumstances in which a person charged with an offence under subsection (5) can offer a defence. Subsection (5) says that it is an offence to fail to comply with the duty in subsection (1), and subsection (1) explains that the duty is
“to make sure that no-smoking signs complying with the requirements of this section are displayed ... in accordance with the requirements of this section.”
Therefore, the offence is failing to ensure that proper signage is displayed.
Amendment No. 49 deals with the fairly convoluted formulation of subsection (6), which sets out the basis on which people can offer a defence, such as
“he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know”.
The amendment offers a much simpler formulation. It takes out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and simply says:
“took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence not to commit the offence.”
That seems to us to be a simple and all-embracing way to put it.
I looked at the explanatory notes to the Bill, which suggest various instances in which paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) might be appropriate. Paragraph (a) says that it is a defence if someone could not reasonably have been expected to know that the premises were smoke-free. The example given is where there is a dispute about what wholly or partially enclosed means. My understanding is that we are talking about proprietors, whose duty it is to put up signs; we are not talking about punters—customers—smoking where they should not. We are talking about the failure of owners, proprietors, managers and so on to make sure that there are signs.
I find the paragraph a bit odd, in the sense that premises do not change much. One could imagine a marginal case in which the proprietor thought that a percentage threshold in the regulations was about 49 per cent. and the inspector thought that it was 51 per cent. They may be the sort of circumstance that the Government have in mind here, but it seems to us an unnecessarily convoluted way of putting it. That sort of case would be caught under our formulation, which deals with whether reasonable precautions were taken and due diligence shown. There is nothing in that kind of example that does not fall within our simple formulation.
The same is true of subsection (6)(b), which says that a proprietor could not reasonably have known that no-smoking signs were not being displayed. The example given in the explanatory notes is where the signs have been vandalised. In other words, the proprietor, acting in good faith, has put the signs up and somebody has come along and pulled them down; he did not know that and could not reasonably have been expected to know that. Again, that seems to me to come under the scope of due diligence. One might reasonably expect a proprietor to put the signs up and check from time to time that they are still there, so again I do not see why we need this complex formulation.
I am also a little confused about paragraph (c). The explanatory note suggests that while it might be a fair cop to say, “The vandals have just taken the sign down”, to say six months later, “They took it down six months ago,” would not be. We want the clause to provide a simple principle that will be applied if action is taken, and the principle of due diligence and reasonable precaution seems to us to be preferable, simpler and widely used elsewhere.
Linked with amendment No. 49 is amendment No. 50, which removes subsection (7). As I understand it, subsection (7) is about the burden of proof. It seems to say what one would expect. In other words, if someone says, “It wasn’t reasonable for me to have known about this because the vandals took the sign down last night and I haven’t been round yet”,  subsection (7) says that the court will accept that unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was not the case. I simply assumed that the court had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the proprietor or landlord was innocent until proven guilty.
We propose to remove subsection (7) so that the Minister will tell us what it adds to the stock of human knowledge. What does it add to the procedure? What does it gain us? As ever, we want simplification and briefer legislation. Our amendment would achieve that, and we look forward to the Committee accepting it.

Andrew Murrison: On the face of it, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment seems reasonable. I am a little concerned, however, that it will clobber proprietors. I wonder what consultations he undertook before tabling his amendments with those whose business it is to run licensed premises, who might be quaking at the thought of the amendments being accepted because of the prospect of their suddenly becoming criminals.
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be introducing an unwarranted level of ambiguity and to be trying to remove a defence that individuals might rely on. I am thinking of large operators, who are responsible for a number of sites. With the best will in the world, it will be extremely difficult for them to police the signs erected all over the place as a result of the legislation. Once again, we have to consider the fact that we might give lawyers a field day.
I know where the hon. Member for Northavon is coming from. He is pursuing his vehemently anti-smoking line, but probably to the nth degree. This is the first time I shall be complimentary about the Bill. It attempts, in a reasonable way, to provide a defence for people acting in good faith to comply with the legislation. Imposing penalties on operators while removing that defence, which is reasonably elegantly laid out in the Bill, seems unhelpful and will almost certainly upset proprietors, particularly those of licensed premises and those who work remotely, perhaps managing a number of premises. They would be quite concerned about the amendments were the Committee to accept them.
The hon. Gentleman says that he has tabled an amendment that would delete subsection (7) in order to tease the Minister on what it would mean were it removed. It is all very well to say that—we all do it—but he knows full well that it would remove the defence on which individuals might reasonably rely. Members of my party would be reluctant to see that subsection removed, and I am sure that the Minister is about to tell us why it should remain.

Caroline Flint: As has been said, subsection (6) sets out the defences available when a person is accused of not complying with a requirement to display no- smoking signs in smoke-free premises, additional smoke-free places under clause 4 and smoke-free vehicles. When there is an offence we clearly have to be mindful of a person’s opportunity to have a defence.  We have discussed the clause with our legal advisers and the Home Office with regard to these offences, which include a person not knowing or not being reasonably expected to know that he or she was not complying with the requirements set out in regulations. Ireland has gone for a total ban and there have been very few prosecutions, which is encouraging from the outset. I am hopeful that the same will apply in England. That said, we need to have some offences to cover breaches of the law. We need to engage with that in relation to the risk consequences and what the defence will be.
Amendment No. 49 would change the defence to having taken
“all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence”.
Lawyers have advised me—I am not a lawyer—that that could allow a slightly broader range of defences, or, in other words, make it a little easier to defend oneself against prosecution for the offence. However, I suppose that one can speak to lots of different lawyers and they will supply lots of different viewpoints. In reality, the difference is small. Subsection (6)(c) already provides a general defence that on other grounds it was reasonable for a person not to comply.
We decided on the defences in subsection (6) to ensure that defences were available if a person genuinely did not know that he was not complying with the requirements. I am sure that we can think of different scenarios. Someone who worked in an establishment might not have been informed that they should check the notices every day. A defence could be that a notice had fallen down but the person was not aware of it. However, the prosecution could then look at the notice and say, “Well, even though it did fall down, it did not comply with the regulations,” so there would be a defence for one aspect but not the other. We want to ensure the greatest possible chance of a successful prosecution where an offence has been committed. I feel satisfied that the subsection achieves that aim so I am not persuaded of the case for revising the defences.
Subsection (7) specifies that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt whether an offence has been committed under clause 6 where a person provides evidence to support a defence. My understanding is that that is in line with offences under other health legislation. If the hon. Member for Northavon is interested, I would be pleased to give him examples of those areas, but I have not got them to hand at the moment. That was one of the issues in applying the clause in this way.
Amendment No. 50 would remove subsection (7). That would make it less clear what burden of proof the prosecution had to discharge. It is important for everyone’s sake that that is made plain in the Bill. If the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, all the defendant has to do is give some evidence. He does not have to prove the evidence. The provisions are fit for purpose, but, as I have said before, I hope that prosecutions of this kind will be few and far between, based on the success in other countries and presumably in other jurisdictions of the UK.

Steve Webb: Naturally, none of us wants lots of prosecutions. Will the Minister comment on the point raised by the hon. Member for Westbury. Who will be prosecuted? Will it be the local landlord, or the senior manager of the region? That has some implications for who provides the defence and who could reasonably be expected to have done what. Will she clarify who will be in the dock?

Caroline Flint: Subsection (1) states:
“It is the duty of any person who occupies or is concerned in the management of smoke-free premises to make sure that no-smoking signs”
comply with the requirements. I suggest that that is not necessarily the licensee. It could be someone managing an establishment or someone who, in their job description, has responsibility for ensuring that certain aspects of running the premises are carried out. For example, in other areas of legislation, responsibilities relating to the sale of alcohol are set out. Those responsibilities could apply to the owner or manager of the premises, but they could also apply to the bar staff. That is my interpretation, but I am happy to follow it up to ensure that I am correct.

Steve Webb: The hon. Member for Westbury accused me of wanting to impose draconian penalties on the nation’s landlords, but the Minister now accuses me of being soft on errant landlords. Perhaps that means that I have got it right. It certainly was not our intention substantively to alter the severity or otherwise of the penalties. From what the Minister said, the difference between our formulation and the Government’s is slight. I prefer ours, but that may be a matter of taste.
I am puzzled by subsection (7). Although I am not a lawyer, it seems that the default position is not that one is innocent until proven guilty—that the onus is not on the prosecution to prove that what one says is not so. I am surprised that it has to be spelt out each and every time that an offence is created. One ought to be able to say, “The prosecution has to prove it, guv’nor.” It surprises me, but perhaps that is the way of the world. I am surprised that it has to be spelt out; if that is so, we will have to leave it in the Bill.
As I said, my preference is for the formulation in amendment No. 49. However, it is a fairly marginal difference, and we certainly do not intend to lessen the penalty for a failure to display those signs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 36, leave out from ‘exceeding’ to end of line 37 and insert
‘level 1 on the standard scale’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 63, in clause 7, page 5, line 14, leave out from ‘exceeding’ to end of line 15 and insert
‘level 1 on the standard scale’.
No. 64, in clause 9, page 6, line 6, leave out from ‘exceeding’ to end of line 7 and insert
‘level 1 on the standard scale’.

Andrew Murrison: This is a straightforward set of amendments; I shall not detain the Committee.
The Bill pretty well gives the Secretary of State the ability to set the penalty for offences under clause 6. In other parts of the Bill, the point on the standard scale to which offences are pegged is set out explicitly. The purpose of the amendments is not to be didactic about the level at which the offences should be pegged on the standard scale—we suggest level 1—but to press the Minister to include in the Bill the point on the standard scale at which it is appropriate that those offences should rest. It seems inappropriate that the House should allow the Secretary of State to set the level of the offence. Given that the level is clearly established elsewhere in the Bill, it seems appropriate that clause 6 should do the same.
The amendments suggest that the clause be altered to reflect level 1 on the standard scale. They are not meant to suggest that level 1 is necessarily where it should be, but rather to press the Minister to make clear in the Bill where she feels it is appropriate for the offence to rest, having regard to proportionality and ensuring that other offences are not degraded by virtue of pegging the offence at an inappropriately high level. That is what we intend. I would be grateful if the Minister would say why a level is not stipulated in the Bill, and perhaps consider whether it would be appropriate to do so, particularly as clause 6 seems exceptional in that its offences do not come with what I might call a tag to show the penalty that should accrue to those who offend.

Caroline Flint: As the hon. Gentleman has said, amendments Nos. 62 to 64 are designed to specify in the Bill the fine levels for the offences of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free places, smoking in a smoke-free place and failing to display no-smoking signs in smoke-free premises.
We conducted a consultation over the summer in which one question was about the level of fines. We proposed a fixed penalty of £50 for the offence of smoking in smoke-free places. On a summary conviction for the offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free premises and the offence of failing to comply with signage requirements, we said that we intended to prescribe in regulations a fine up to level 1, which is at present up to £200. We intend that the regulations will prescribe a fixed penalty of £50 for the offence of smoking in smoke-free premises. That is the same amount as for the offence of consuming alcohol in a designated place. The next level of penalty is £80, which covers offences such as behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It is not appropriate to put the smoking offence in that category. The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so he agrees. We accept that the appropriate fine for a smoker who did not pay a FPN would be a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
That said, a large number of respondents to the consultation felt that the penalty amounts were too low, particularly in relation to the offences of failing to  prevent smoking in smoke-free places and failing to display no-smoking signs in smoke-free places. Comparisons were made with the €3,000 fine in Ireland. The point was made that if fines were too low and there was no escalation for repeat offences, some businesses might prefer to pay fines as a business cost to secure revenue from smokers.
In the light of that, we have been in further discussions with the Home Office on the appropriate fine levels for those two offences. The Home Office has advised us that it feels that the fine for the offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free premises should be at a higher level. I am considering that advice in some detail and I will set out our final intentions on Report. Based on what has come forward quite recently from the Departments, I am considering the matter further. It is important to show that we are serious about where the ban will apply. People running establishments will need to be mindful of that. As I have said, I hope that the need for prosecution will be such that prosecutions are few and far between.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister be clear about what she will do on Report? There is a feeling among Opposition Members that the maximum limit on the scale of the penalties should appear in the primary legislation; it should not be left to regulation to impose that maximum limit. Does the Minister propose to return on Report, having finished her consideration in the Department, and to amend the Bill, which would be the preferred course of action, or is she saying that she will simply make an announcement? We may not reach this matter on Report. I am sure that she will find a way to get it on the record, but we may have limited time. Can she explain whether she will give a verbal assurance or place the maximum limit in the Bill?

Caroline Flint: I am not minded to place it in the Bill, because in line with other areas in which penalties apply, there are issues about the flexibility to make changes based on experience. I do not want to set a precedent in this area that would not necessarily apply to other areas in which regulations are used. In terms of discussion in the House, these matters would form part of an affirmative resolution process.
On the other point made by the hon. Member for Reigate, about what happens if there is not enough time on Report, I am actively considering the issue. I shall reflect on what has been said and on what I can achieve by way of a clearer steer on where we are going with it. I hope that that will suffice for now. I do not want the matter to be left for Report, as this part of the Bill might not be reached and people would not have another chance to discuss it. As I said, the issue will be subject to draft regulations, at which time wider views will be expressed, and to the affirmative resolution procedure.
It is my wish—and everybody’s wish, I am sure—that the measures in the Bill will be self-enforcing, and that there will be little need for prosecution. Having said that, we must be serious about the proposals and, clearly, we should not leave loopholes for people to take advantage of, or allow repeat offences for which  there can be no taking into account the fact that the offending involves more than one mistake—a repeat offender situation. It is important that the fines reflect that. As I said, I am considering what came out of the consultation, and discussing the appropriate level of fine with the Home Office.

Andrew Murrison: We have had a useful debate. The Minister admits that she does not expect a raft of prosecutions under clause 6, but that is slightly at odds with the notion that we should not peg the offence at a particular level. Indeed, the likelihood of offences is related to the point at which one pegs the penalty. I hope that that is the case, otherwise it would make a mockery of our justice system. There is a disconnect somewhere that we will have to explore at a later stage.
I am grateful to the Minister, up to a point, for the reassurance that she has given, although I believe that the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate are well founded. Overall, this is a rather small part of the Bill, so I am not inclined to detain the Committee on it too long or to press the amendment to a Division. Nevertheless, we have identified an area that needs further work, and I am pleased that the Minister will think about it. We must get the proportionality right. I believe that most people would say that level 2 is probably inappropriate for this offence, on the basis of the description that the Minister gave of level 2 offences.
I also hesitate to support the Minister’s contention that there would be a perverse incentive at level 1 for people simply to take the fine on the chin and say, “It’s cheaper than providing adequate signage.” The Minister said that she does not expect many cases to be brought for the offence, and I also suspect that that will be the case. It would be extraordinary for a company or a licensee to go to the trouble of turning up in court, with all that that means in local publicity and so on, in order to circumvent the expense of providing signage. In summary, I agree with the Minister that repeat offences must be dealt with seriously. We have no doubt that that would be the case, given what is in the Bill.
I am not prepared at this stage to press the matter. I hope that we will reach this part of the Bill on Report and have time to debate it, and that the Minister will come back with some answers as to why she cannot peg the penalty at the appropriate level. On reflection, and given the Minister’s description, that would seem to be level 1. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

George Young: I think that this is the appropriate point at which to ask a general question about the clause, which creates a duty to display no-smoking signs. The clause makes sense in the narrow context of the Bill, but a rather awkward issue arises if one stands back and puts the Bill into perspective.
The Bill is a stage on a journey, at the beginning of which smoking was the majority activity and was permitted everywhere. At the end of the journey is a presumption that smoking is not a permitted activity and that non-smoking is the norm. We are moving down that path, and as we do so, we preclude smoking as an activity from more and more places. It therefore makes sense to indicate where smoking is banned as one goes down that path.
There comes a point, however, when the see-saw begins to tilt and non-smoking is the presumed activity. At the moment, it seems that the clause will be there for ever and a day, whereas I want there to be smoking signs. In other words, I want there to be a presumption that one cannot smoke anywhere, and that signs are put up in the minority of places in which smoking is still permitted, thanks to the Secretary of State for Defence. It appears that we cannot change the terms of trade or the centre of gravity without primary legislation to change the clause.
It is illegal to perform many activities in public, but there are no signs that say so. I remember signs in France that said, “Défense de Cracher”, which means no spitting. There are no such signs in this country; they are not needed. Will the Minister say at what point we have reached the critical stage where we do not need no-smoking signs because non-smoking is the norm, and where we need instead signs that say “Smoking”? When we have reached that paradise, which I hope will not be too far in the future, will we need primary legislation to amend the clause by deleting the “No” at the beginning of the title of the clause so that it reads “Smoking signs”? Is there another way around this that does not enshrine in legislation the fact that no smoking is the protected activity and that allows us to take that step forward?
It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little about the stage at which no smoking is the norm and we do not need all these signs that will pop up everywhere.

Crispin Blunt: I reinforce my right hon. Friend’s views. Stocksigns, a company in my constituency that makes signs, enjoyed a rare bonanza when the fire regulations insisted on a vast increase in fire exit signs and the rest, and I realise that the mouths will be watering at the prospect of the regulations being enforced if that means that we are to identify every place in the country as a no-smoking area and if a duty is to be laid on establishments everywhere that are non-smoking, which will be a significant majority of establishments of one form or another.
I can only say that unnecessary, bossy signs are a disagreeable part of the environment, and I sincerely hope that the Government will include a sunset clause in the regulations when they introduce them. It should not take very long to reach the tipping point that my right hon. Friend mentioned if, as he says, the Bill and this measure are another stage on the journey that he described. We are quite near that tipping point already, and no-smoking signs will be unnecessary very shortly. I therefore hope that a sunset clause will appear in the regulations.

Andrew Murrison: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) are absolutely right that we risk the clutter of yet more signs, and although I do not want to deprive my hon. Friend’s constituents the business that appears to be coming their way, allowing for smoking signs rather than non-smoking signs would be a sensible way ahead. I am very sure that outside bodies that deal with sensitive sites in particular would also be interested in that—

It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at five minutes to Four o’clock.